AFL has 'shot itself in the foot' in Crows salary cap case, says player agent

ADELAIDE'S high-powered defence of salary cap breaches has been dramatically strengthened by the AFL's shock crackdown on Chris Judd.

That is the opinion of one of the league's leading player agents, who believes the AFL has "shot itself in the foot" by moving the goalposts on the Carlton superstar's controversial third-party arrangement with Visy in the final year of a six-year deal.

"That had to be music to the ears of the Crows," said the high-profile agent, who suggested the AFL - not Adelaide - had moved to adjourn today's planned AFL Commission hearing into the breaking of player rules involving Kurt Tippett "because it hasn't got its own backyard in order''.

"The Crows would have gone, 'Thank you very much, that's exactly what we've been trying to say, that there are grey areas or technicalities with all these third-party deals'."

The AFL announced on Friday that the Blues had been told the $250,000-a-year that Judd earns in an ambassadorial role from Visy can no longer be paid outside the salary cap.

The third-party deal had previously been signed off by salary cap watchdog Ken Wood.

Admitting the Crows didn't appear to be "squeaky clean" over alleged salary cap rorting and draft tampering, the agent said the AFL's apparent uncertainty over what constituted a third-party deal should play into Adelaide's hands.

"The bottom line is that if the AFL had clearly defined what is and what isn't a third-party arrangement then why has it changed its mind on the Judd deal five years after signing off on it?," the agent said.

"The AFL has suddenly decided that money has to be included in the cap, which makes me laugh.

"They have appeared to move the goalposts on the back of this whole Tippett stuff which shows me that they aren't convinced they have hole-proof guidelines for third-party arrangements.

"If you are moving the goalposts how can you expect the Crows or any club to know exactly what the guidelines are? The question must be asked, would those guidelines stand up in court?

"The Crows can jump all over this, making their case that it highlights that there are grey areas with the whole issue.

"They might be guilty of naivety but I don't think they've deliberately tried to rip anyone off. That should be a key part to the whole investigation and it should result in them getting a lighter penalty."

The AFL says it has tightened the criteria for the approval of third-party arrangements because of the advent of free agency.

But the agent argues if Judd's deal was given the green light until this month, the AFL needs to be more lenient on other third-party deals which might have taken place in the past few years.

Adelaide has been in the spotlight for supposed third-party arrangements with Tippett, captain Nathan van Berlo and star midfielder Patrick Dangerfield.The Advertiser understands the Crows have six players on independent deals, but that all arrangements were signed off by the AFL.

Tippett's deals with several companies, including Balfours and Alan Sheppard Constructions, appear to have caused the Crows most concern with questions over how the deals were initiated and whether Adelaide actively sought money for the player.

Van Berlo and Dangerfield's managers insist their clients have no cases to answer.

The agent said the biggest grey area revolved around when businesses ring a club asking to use a player for promotional purposes.

"This is where commonsense has to come into things," he said.

"Surely the club is allowed to recommend someone when a business comes knocking because players should have the right to make money outside of their contracts in commercial arrangements which are proven to be independent of their clubs."

It is understood 68 AFL players benefited from third-party agreements last season, with less than one per cent of the income of AFL players coming from such arrangements.